Zingari Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 Boris Wants Water Cannon For London's Streets http://news.sky.com/story/1192141/boris-wants-water-cannon-for-londons-streets get ready folks , it's coming !
ADK Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 God's already doing a good job of using water cannon on London. Reminds me of playing GTA2 with the fire engine you could kill people with the water cannon but it took ages.
Guest MattP Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 Can see how he turned out like he did when you see the behaviour of his family. Glorifying a violent gang leader who is a career criminal and has murdered people just because they are black. Some of this country is in the gutter.
Itsthejoeker Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 How anyone can consider sticking up for this guy, I really don't know. People treating him like a saint, the twat was carrying a gun?!
indierich06 Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 No-one's sticking up for him, people are pissed off that the police gunned down a bloke who was unarmed at the time - he lobbed his gun out of a window - it doesn't mean they're sticking up for the bloke. He sounds like a right piece of work, but does that give the police the right to kill him? Another stitch up which lets the cops off scot-free.
Zingari Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 No-one's sticking up for him, people are pissed off that the police gunned down a bloke who was unarmed at the time - he lobbed his gun out of a window - it doesn't mean they're sticking up for the bloke. He sounds like a right piece of work, but does that give the police the right to kill him? Another stitch up which lets the cops off scot-free. that's pretty much how i see it too
Webbo Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 This verdict was decided by a jury who have heard all the evidence, who is anyone to second guess them?
Zingari Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 This verdict was decided by a jury who have heard all the evidence, who is anyone to second guess them? true but the jury was probably told a very tendentious account of the event. In the same way we were all convinced for a while Jean Charles de Menezes " got what was coming to him" Sorry but i don't trust the police 100% anymore
Webbo Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 true but the jury was probably told a very tendentious account of the event. In the same way we were all convinced for a while Jean Charles de Menezes " got what was coming to him" Sorry but i don't trust the police 100% anymore I should think the family had legal representation there. I don't trust the police either but I don't see why they should execute a small time gangster and leave others.
Zingari Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 I should think the family had legal representation there. I don't trust the police either but I don't see why they should execute a small time gangster and leave others. Police testimonies will always carry more weight than individual citizens in a courtroom , and even when they blatantly lie they somehow manage to muddy the waters and obfuscate long enough til it dies down .
indierich06 Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 This verdict was decided by a jury who have heard all the evidence, who is anyone to second guess them? All the evidence, most of which was from the police. Their word against his springs to mind - except he's not here to tell his side of the story now, is he? Fact is that the jury accepted that Duggan was unarmed at the time he was shot. So how on earth can it be a lawful killing when the suspect was unarmed and posed no threat?
Guest MattP Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 All the evidence, most of which was from the police. Their word against his springs to mind - except he's not here to tell his side of the story now, is he? Fact is that the jury accepted that Duggan was unarmed at the time he was shot. So how on earth can it be a lawful killing when the suspect was unarmed and posed no threat? Because they believed the officer when he said he believed Duggan had a gun. Which is fair considering it appears Duggan waa off to murder someone.
Webbo Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 All the evidence, most of which was from the police. Their word against his springs to mind - except he's not here to tell his side of the story now, is he? Fact is that the jury accepted that Duggan was unarmed at the time he was shot. So how on earth can it be a lawful killing when the suspect was unarmed and posed no threat? You'd have to ask the jury that but they've heard all the facts in detail, maybe they got it right?
indierich06 Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 Because they believed the officer when he said he believed Duggan had a gun. Which is fair considering it appears Duggan waa off to murder someone. http://news.sky.com/story/1192172/mark-duggan-inquest-police-chief-heckled The angry scenes came after an inquest jury found Mr Duggan was unarmed when he was shot dead but was still killed using lawful force. So, no, the jury found he was unarmed when he was shot dead. The bloke sounds like a ****ing arsehole, and yeah - he should've been arrested and dealt with via the proper channels, but this isn't about him - it's about the police executing an unarmed civilian. EDIT: And if all you have to do is say 'I thought he had a gun' then I should be able to go out and commit any murder I like and just claim it was self defence.
Carl the Llama Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 EDIT: And if all you have to do is say 'I thought he had a gun' then I should be able to go out and commit any murder I like and just claim it was self defence. CoughGeorgeZimmermanCough
Guest MattP Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 Read what I wrote again Rich. The Jury believed he believed Duggan had a gun, had he shot him knowing he was unarmed he was already be in prison.
anotherharboroughfox Posted 8 January 2014 Posted 8 January 2014 The one thing I seriously despise about this is the fact that people keep bringing up race. It's completely irrelevant. I personally don't believe he should have been shot, but he ran the risk of it when he possessed a gun.
ozleicester Posted 9 January 2014 Author Posted 9 January 2014 The police are supposed to be law abiding also, the officer/s who shot and killed an unarmed man should be charged and held up to judgment like anyone else in the community. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
Zingari Posted 9 January 2014 Posted 9 January 2014 The police are supposed to be law abiding also, the officer/s who shot and killed an unarmed man should be charged and held up to judgment like anyone else in the community. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Quite so . And look at how they blatantly lie , get caught lying , and still get away with it !! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711 "In the hours that followed the shooting the IPCC was also responsible for making public the most incendiary claim of all - an entirely incorrect suggestion that Mr Duggan had himself fired at police officers." WTF ? an entirely incorrect suggestion ? no it fookin isn't , it's a goddam conspiratorial lie !!!!
Webbo Posted 9 January 2014 Posted 9 January 2014 The police are supposed to be law abiding also, the officer/s who shot and killed an unarmed man should be charged and held up to judgment like anyone else in the community. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. There was an inquest, a legal process. The jury decided it was lawful. Justice was done and seen to be done, just because some people choose not to agree doesn't change that.
ozleicester Posted 9 January 2014 Author Posted 9 January 2014 There was an inquest, a legal process. The jury decided it was lawful. Justice was done and seen to be done, just because some people choose not to agree doesn't change that. Fair point Edit: Sorry scratch that, an unarmed man was shot and police lied about it and no-one has been punished, im not so sure that justice was done
Guest MattP Posted 9 January 2014 Posted 9 January 2014 Fair point Edit: Sorry scratch that, an unarmed man was shot and police lied about it and no-one has been punished, im not so sure that justice was done It's your fault if you don't understand the law.
hackneyfox Posted 9 January 2014 Posted 9 January 2014 Can see how he turned out like he did when you see the behaviour of his family. Glorifying a violent gang leader who is a career criminal and has murdered people just because they are black. Some of this country is in the gutter. Because they believed the officer when he said he believed Duggan had a gun. Which is fair considering it appears Duggan waa off to murder someone. Can you provide proof that Duggan has killed anyone. How do you know Duggan was off to kill someone, people don't get killed every time a gun is pulled. The gun had previously been used to pistol whip someone in a barbers in Hackney.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.